Hayward v. State Farm Mut. Automobile Ins. Co.
| Decision Date | 29 May 1942 |
| Docket Number | No. 33077.,33077. |
| Citation | 4 N.W.2d 316,212 Minn. 500 |
| Parties | HAYWARD v. STATE FARM MUT. AUTOMOBILE INS. CO. et al. |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
Appeal from District Court, Otter Tail County; Anton Thompson, Judge.
Action by George C. Hayward against the State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, and the Home Insurance Company of New York, to recover the amount of damage to plaintiff's automobile under policies of collision insurance. The State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company paid the amount sought to be recovered into court and was dismissed from the suit. The Home Insurance Company of New York set up its right to the money as subrogee. From an order denying the motion of the Home Insurance Company of New York for amended findings and conclusions which would have resulted in its recovery of a portion of the money deposited in court, or, in the alternative, for a new trial, on ground that the findings, conclusions, and order for judgment were not justified by the evidence and were contrary to the law, the Home Insurance Company of New York appeals.
Order reversed with directions.
Robins & Davis, of Minneapolis (James H. Levy, of Minneapolis, of counsel), for appellant.
Frankberg & Berghuis, of Fergus Falls, for respondent.
In a suit for damages to his person and his Plymouth coach, George C. Hayward recovered a verdict of $7,401.93 against Ted Vollbrecht December 17, 1938. The judgment entered pursuant thereto on September 16, 1939, was affirmed upon appeal to this court. Hayward v. Vollbrecht, 208 Minn. 191, 293 N.W. 246. Prior to Hayward's suit against Vollbrecht, the Home Insurance Company of New York, appellant here, paid Hayward $550, representing the damage to his car under a policy of collision insurance carried by Hayward, and that company took a subrogation receipt and assignment from Hayward. It also took a bill of sale of the wrecked car, from which it realized $135.90.
After affirmance by this court, the State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, Vollbrecht's insurer, paid the judgment except for the $550 which the Home Insurance Company had claimed under its right of subrogation. Thereupon Hayward sued both companies for the $550. The Farm Mutual paid the money into court and was dismissed from the suit. The Home company set up its right to the $550 as subrogee, but on the trial deducted therefrom the $135.90 realized from the wrecked car and also its proportionate share of attorneys' fees. The court made findings and conclusions in favor of Hayward. The Home company moved for amended findings and conclusions which would have resulted in its recovery of $279.52 out of the money deposited in court, or, in the alternative, for a new trial, upon the ground that the findings, conclusions, and order for judgment were not justified by the evidence and were contrary to law. The Home company has appealed from the order denying its motion.
The question presented is whether or not the Home company as subrogee can assert a right to the money paid into court.
1. As we view it, the trial court erred in assuming that damage to the car could be proved only by opinion evidence as to its value prior to and after the accident. That is not the only way in which such damage can be proved. That contention was made in Moore v. Daggett, 129 Me. 488, 489, 150 A. 538, where no such opinion evidence was introduced, but substantial physical damage was described to the jury. The court, said:
In Teets v. Hahn, 104 N.J.L. 357, 359, 140 A. 427, 428, where it was contended that expert knowledge was required as a foundation for an opinion as to value, the court said:
It is true that in both of those cases the original cost of the car was before the jury, but that element does not fix the value of a car just prior to a collision. It is an element which may be entirely disregarded by the jury. Its lack of importance is readily apparent to anyone who will take the trouble to observe the prices placarded upon used cars in used car lots. The cost price of a used car is never a controlling or even an influential factor in arriving at its value. Moreover, the approximate cost of new cars in the price class of a Plymouth is well known.
In the case at bar the car was struck with such violence that it was thrown at least 15 feet across a ditch. The impact was on the left side at the door, front fender, and running board, all of which were crushed. The cowl and instrument board were damaged. The gearshift lever was jammed in second speed, which indicated damage to the frame and gearbox. One witness testified that the pictures introduced showed the external damage clearly. In all probability, every juror who heard the case and saw the make and model of the damaged Plymouth coach had an opinion as to its value prior to the collision. Having seen the character of the damage that had been done, as well as having heard a garageman describe in some detail the extent of the damage to the car inside and out, he could say very well how much less it was worth after the accident. At any rate, as said in the Moore case, the damage to the car was substantial and not merely nominal. It justified a recovery in some substantial amount.
In his complaint, plaintiff alleged the value of his car both before and after the collision and included that as an element of his cause of action. The answer admitted damage to the car but denied knowledge or information as to the amount. Plaintiff introduced the evidence referred to, and the trial court submitted the question of damages to the jury under proper instructions. It cannot be said that there was no recovery for this element of damage.
2. Hayward had but one indivisible cause of action against Vollbrecht, the wrongdoer. He subrogated a part of his cause to the Home Insurance Company when he collected his collision insurance, and this was true whether or not he signed a subrogation receipt knowing what it was. Subrogation is "not dependent upon contract, privity, or strict suretyship." Emmert v. Thompson, 49 Minn. 386, 52 N.W. 31, 32 Am.St.Rep. 566; Northern Trust Co. v. Consolidated Elev. Co., 142 Minn. 132, 171 N.W. 265, 4 A.L.R. 510.
3. The only means which the Home company had of recovery on its subrogated right was to have its claim included in plaintiff's cause of action against the wrongdoer. As against the wrongdoer, it could not be in any better position than the insured. By no act of either the insurer or the insured could the wrongdoer be subjected to two actions on one cause. The cause of action could not be split by the insurer any more than it could by the insured. If recovery...
To continue reading
Request your trial